Full text of "Comparable worth in Montana state government : a report to the Fifty-second Legislature"

See other formats

Montana State Library

Records Digitization Project

COVER SHEET

This page is not part of ttie original document
and was inserted for formatting purposes

S Stoll, Paula
331.21 Comparable worth

P2cwm in Montana state

1991 qoverninent

STATE DOCUMENTS CniLECTlOM

APR 8 1991

MONTANA STATE LIBRARY

1515 E. 6th AVE.
HELENA, MONTANA 59620

COMPARABLE WORTH

IN MONTANA
STATE GOVERNMENT

A Report to the Fifty-Second Legislature

State Personnel Division
Department of Administration

January 1991

.LriUC

MONTANA STATE LIBRARY

S 331 21 P2cwm 199, c.1 Sloll '-'°"'*"'
'^f!?M?'"f "'""' '" Moitana stale govern

"'" "'""i|i|in|(|[[(|iii|ii|) ■

3 0864 00072131 9

This report on the status of the standard of Comparable Worth in Montana State
Government is being submitted to the Fifty-second Legislature in compliance with
2-18-209, MCA. The report was developed by the staff of the State Personnel
Division, Department of Administration, Room 130, Sam W. Mitchell Building in
Helena. Staff members may be contacted by phone at 444-3871.

Dave Ashley, Acting Director
Department of Administration

STATE PERSONNEL DIVISION STAFF

Laurie Ekanger
Administrator

John II. McEwen, Chief
Classification Bureau

Paula Stoll

Labor Relations Specialist

(author)

Beverly M. Pickett

Word Processing Technician

lAliLK OF CON lENTS

liilrodiic'tion 1

C()m|)nrnl)lc' W'oiili - A DcCinition 1

lunplovces Iiuliidccl in tliis Coniparaljle Worlh SUidy 2

Format of (he Utporl 3

Part 1 - The \Va};f (;ap 4

("omponents ol" the \Va};e Gaj) -4

a. Male/Female Dillorciiccs in Fenjith of Service 6

I). Male/I'cmale DillVreiices in Job Content 6

Analysis ol Occiipalional Cate<;ories 7

Male/Female Dominant Classes *>

Snmmarv ^^

Part 2 - Closinji the Wage Cap 1-1

The KITecls (»r Sex Sejjrej^ation 1-4

'Ihe KITecls ol Dillerences in lulucation and Training 1-4

ClassiUcalion S\sUin Fnhancements 16

Part 3 - ('onclusions and Recommendations 17

Impediments to Achie\in<j a Standard of Comparable Worth 17

Appendix A 19

INTRODIK HON

In 19S3, the Montana State Ixjiislatiire anirnied its commitment to equitable pay
practices in state government by enacting the "comparable worth statute." This law
requires the Department of Administration, "in its elTorts to enhance the current
classification plan and pay schedules, [to] work toward the goal of establishing a standard
of equal pay for comparable worth" (2-18-208, MCA). In addition, the Department is
required to report the status of the study of the comparable worth standard to the
Legislature, and to make recommendations to the I^egislature "as to what impediments
exist to meeting this standard" (2-18-209, MCA). This is the fourth such report.

When Montana's comparal)le worth law was first passed, the notion of "comparable worth"
pay systems was not widely understood. Montana, like other large employers, had a job
classification system in place for setting pay. A study of comparable worth subsequently
revealed that the statewide classification and pay system essentially already met the
standard of comparable worth for 91 percent of the state's employees. Montana's
classification method is outdated, by industry standards, since it is not a point factoring
method. But in other respects our classification system more nearly achieves comparable
worth.

Comparable Worth - A Definition

Com|)arable worth is defined as equal pay for jobs that are of equivalent overall value
to a given employer regardless of the relative salaries such jobs receive in the surrounding
lal)()r market. Under this definition, comparable worth assures that the salaries of jobs
are not based on the sex or race of employees in those jobs. Instead, they are based on
the job characteristics the employing organisation considers to be of greatest value. This
concept dilTers from the concept of equal pay for equal work, which requires equal
com|)ensation for joI)s that are essentially identical.

A primary concern for a comparable worth approach is job evaluation. Job evaluation
in its simplest form is the process used by an employer to evaluate and measure jobs to
establish relative job worth. To measure comparable worth it is necessary to use a
bias-free job evaluation method that measures job content and can be applied consistently
to all jobs. A "point factoring" method is the job evaluation method of choice for
measuring comparable worth. ^ With point factoring, jobs are given points to refiect

^ Helen Remick, "Major Issues in A-priori Applications," Comparable Worth and \N'at;e
Discrimination, Temple University Press, (Philadelphia: 1984), p. 99.

COMPWni.RPT . 1 .

strcnjjth or weaknesses in each of several prcckTined factors (e.g., skill, effort, respon-
sibility). The points are totaled and a hierarchy of jobs is constructed based on the total
points accorded. Pay is then based on these job evaluation points.

Montana's job evaluation method, which is not point factored, has been cited in all
previous reports to the legislature as an impediment in measuring and illustrating the
success of meeting the comparable worth standard. In 1990, the Department of
Administration received approval of its plan for a point-factored job evaluation system.
Implementation of that system is expected to begin by May 1, 1991.

Montana's new job evaluation system will attempt to capture the policy established by its
existing methodology, which is a factor guided ci)mparison and ranking system. Both
systems meet the prerequisite for achieving comparable worth in that they measure the
characteristics of the job and not the characteristics of the worker. Montana's point
factoring system will be used to rate each job using the same factors now considered.
Points will then be assigned to "degrees" of each factor to indicate the extent in which the
job possesses the factor. The total evaluation points will then be used to determine the
appropriate salary range. In contrast with the state's current job evaluation system, the
points will remain constant across all jobs, and thus measuring the stale's success in
meeting comparable worth standards will be less difTicult. (If a male dominant job
receives the same point totals as a female dominant job yet is placed in a higher pay
grade, this will be an indication of disparate treatment of females.)

Absent a point factored job evaluation system, there are still ways to determine whether
disparate practices affect the pay of state employees. One way is to compare the average
salaries earned by minorities and/or females to those earned by white males. The
difference, if any, in pay is called "the wage gap." A wage gap is acceptable as long as the
same objective, consistent pay practices apply to all employees regardless of their race,
sex, or any other personal characteristics that are not job related. Any portion of the
wage gap that cannot be explained as stemming from the legitimate operation of the pay
plan may indicate discriminatory practices.

Based on traditional employment patterns, some wage gap can be expected because of job
segregation -- the crowding of females and/or minorities into relatively low-skill jobs.
Even in a comparable worth system, if females hold jobs that are less difTicult and
responsible than those held by males, their average salaries will be lower. Another
"legitimate" component of the wage gap is longevity, or dilTerences in earnings that result
from one group having spent more years in state government service.

Employees Included in this Comparable Worth Study

Too few members of any racial minority are employed in Montana state government to
study how positions they hold are classiTied or paid. No class is dominated by a racial

COMPVVTH.RPT - 2 -

minority. For this comparable worth study, only the differences between male and female
salaries are considered.

The study group for this report is the 7,934 full-time employees paid under the Statewide
Classification and Pay IMan. Data for the report was extracted from the IVrson-
nel/I*ayroll/Position Control data base in November, 1990.

Employees of the legislative and judicial branches of state government, employees who
were appointed to exempt personal staff positions, and other exempt officers and
employees described in 2-18-203, MCA, are not considered in this report, nor are seasonal,
temporary, intermittent, or part-time employees.

Format of the Report

Part I of this report provides information about the current gap between what the male
and female employees described above earn. It compares this wage gap to those described
in the 1985, 1987, and 1989 Comparable Worth Reports by pay plan, and it looks at
components of the wage gap under the Statewide Classification and Pay Plan,

Part 2 of the report discusses some actions that have served to reduce the difference in
male and female salaries, and identifies impediments to meeting the standard of
comparable worth among all employees.

Part 3 provides conclusions and recommendations.

COMPWTH.RPT

PART 1
THE WAGE GAP

I'lie average salary for fcinales under the statewide pay schedule is $19,290 while the
average male salai^ is $24,336 - lor a raw wage gap of 21 percent. This llgure has
decreased by approximately five percent since the first comparable worth report \Nas
reported to the Legislature in 1985. Table 1 on the following page provides the average
male and female salary differences for the study group as well as other permanent, full-
time positions under the blue collar, retail clerk, physician, and teacher pay plans.

In F\'85 the average grade for females under the statewide pay schedule was 9.6. In FV91,
the average is lO.I. In l'\ <S5 the average grade for males was 12.7. In K^'9I, it is 12.3.
These changes, along \Nith the decreasing wage gap, are the result of changes in employee
demographics.

Nationwide, figures for female earnings as a percent of male earnings average 69.5
percent^. Montana stale government appears to be in a better position with regard to
this female/male pay disparity trend, but to determine whether gender bias affects state
empIo\ees' pay the components of the wage gap must be examined.

Components of the Wage Cap

Employees covered by the statewide classification and pay schedule receive compensation
for "responsibilities assumed" and "complexity of work" performed (or job content) as
authorized in 2-18-202, MCA. They receive compensation for length of service (longe>ity)
as authorized in 2-18-304, MCA, as well as in the pay matrices. While there is a
provision that allows the Department of Administration to grant exceptions to the general
pay schedule to mitigate recruitment and retention problems, the overall compensation
plan doesn't include any external labor market component.

Under the statewide schedule, which covers 91 percent of classified executive branch
employees, just iwo components - job content and longe\ity — determine the pay an
employee receives. Any dilTerence in earnings between male and female employees should
stem from differences in the responsibilities and complexities of their jobs, or dilTercnces
in length of service.

^ KmploMnent and Karnings, U.S. Department of Labor, Hureau of Labor Statistics,
January, 1990

COMPWni.RPT - 4 -

tarn

>, 3

ifi

■-■

i»»

,><

£•

;?.

a
c

J-

f\l •- o
00 • o
r^ o f\j

CO (\i ro
■o • o

^0 O LH

~0 •

oj ro O
in • -O
•- f\j r^

ro N- -J-
^O • O
r- Od -^

Kl O

V—

C\J

*/»

in o

>0 m

(C§

•- c>

Ki r-

o
m

h- O

ro in

-4- ■-

«- --J

f^ 03

ro" r."

fNJ

CO ru

>0 r\j
o rsj
~0 00

vO K

«j

fvj in

N-

to
vt

CM
CO

-o

1^ »-

^o""

>- o

(NJ

co"

(Vl ^

CM CO •-

rg ro ^

■*

(NJ

-J-

f\J

CNJ

,_r

CNJ

'4-

i/i

C31

• *

(>0

£-

t/>

>»

>■

C/l

COMPWm.RF'T

a. Miile/Fenialc Din'ciTiia-s in txngtli of Service

Among employees covered \>y the statewide classillcation and pay plan, males receive
more longevity pay than females. I'his is consistent with nationwide data which indicates
that females are more likely to have breaks in service for childrearing or to follow
husbands who transler work locations.^ The matrix for the statewide schedule consists
of 25 grades, or pay ranges, which are based on Job content and 13 steps, or incremental
ad\ancements within the pa} range, which are based on length of service. If dilTerences
in length of service are taken out (all employees paid at the Step 5 rate for their grade),
the average female salary is $18,993, and the average male salary $22,999. When
corrected for the elfecls of longevity pay, the wage gap is reduced from 21 to 18 percent.
Slated dilTerently, the dilTerence in longevity accounts lor about 3 percent of the raw wage
gap lor emi)loyees covered under the statewide classillcation and |)ay plan. The fact that
steps have been frozen for five of the past six years, cou|)led with turnover at the higher
steps, may account for some narrowing of the wage gap since 1985.

b. Male/Female DilTerences in Job Content

The relationship between what a job requires in terms of skill, eflort, responsibility, and
working conditions and what it pays should be the same for all employees, regardless of
their gender. If it can be shown that dilTerences in male/female salaries stem from
objectively measured dilTerences in the jobs they hold, then a wage gap is legitimate. As
referred to in the introduction, comparable worth should be measured by "the ap|)licalion
of a single, bias-free point factor job evaluation system within a given establishment,
across job families, both to rank-order jobs and to set salaries."''

As mentioned in the introduction, Montana currently lacks the sophisticated kind of job
evaluation system that can C(impare individual positions to each other in quantiHed terms.
In a point-lactoring system such as the one currently being developed, it would be possible
to compare an Administrative Assistant I! (a female dominant class) to a Correctional
Officer (a male dominant class) in terms of how many points each received for each job
content factor (such as skill, elTort, responsibility, and working conditions). Total point

^ Single, never-married males and females exhibit the smallest lifetime earnings
differential and have the most similar lifetime labor force participation. The widest
difTerential in lifetime earnings and lifetime labor force participation exists between
married, spouse-present males and females. (Source cited below.)

tU'Iid. Antlrcii IT. "< )ct iipalional Segregation and the learnings (iap," Comparable
NNoith: Issue inr the S(ts. A ( ■oiisuIlali(ui of the II. S. Commission on Ci>il Rights,
Volume I, (Washington, I). C.: 1984) p.42.

'' Remick, op. cit.
COMinVTII.Rn - 6 -

scores >v()iil(l conxcrl (o jjnidcs, or piiy riin^cs. Tlio relalionship between job coiilont and
pay would l)c rc'adil\ ap|)arcn(, and it could be shown that the same standards were
applied \>ithout rejjard lo gender. Lacking; a (piantil'ied evaluation tool at this point,
Montana state j;o\eninunl nuist take another appro. uh whiili ideuMs liist on juli
se<;rejiation.

Certain occupations, sucli as nursinjj and civil en};ineerinji, are gender-dominant. Men
tend to dominate occupations that pay better than those dominated by women. This may
be the result ol" (I) males having exerted their historically greater power to negotiate
higher wages, (2) societal conditioning that values "men's" work more than "women's"
work, (3) women ha\ing l)eeii channeled into narrower occupational choices which forced
wages down by creating a surplus of workers in those occupations, or (4) any combination
of the above, as well as other complex factors, all j)f which are beyond the scope of this
report. Job segregation exists in Montana slate government, and it affects the wage gap.
The reasons for its existence are often discussed in conjunction uith the "c()mparai)le
worth issue," but for this report, the issue is narrowed to what the law requires - that (I)
judgments and factors that contain inherent biases based on sex be eliminated in the
classification of positions, and that (2) factors for determining job worth be compared
across occupational groups >vhen either is gender-dominant.^

Analysis of Occupational Categories

Occupations can be grou|)ed into categories according to the type of work that is
peiformed and the knowledge and skills that arc retpiircd. These categories are
"Administrators/OITicials," Professionals," "Technicians," "IVotective Services," "Skilled
Crafts," "I'araprofessionals," "Clerical," and "Service/Maintenance."

If only preliminary job analysis had been conducted - that required to determine which
occupational category a job belonged with -- a 13 percent wage gap would exist. As shown
on 'rai)le 2 of the following i)age, the only occupational categories that are predominantly
female are "Paraprolessionals" and "C'lerical."

A hypothetical "test" lor the amount of wage gap that is truly job content-caused was
devised in 1985 and used for all subsequent reports. In this "test," all classes were
combined into the eight occui)ational groujjs addressed above. A total salary for the
occupational group was (tbtained from November, 1990, payroll data. This total salary
I'lgure mitigates the elVects of classes that are undergraded or overgraded by combining
the salaries they produce with that of all other classes in the occupational group.

5 2-18-209, M.C.A.
COMPWIII.RPT - 7

TAHLK 2

Hypothetical Wage Gap*

MALE

FEMALE

Number

Portions of

Total Salary

Occupational Group

1990

Male

F cma I e

Off icials/ Admin is trntors

537

77%

159

23%

16,799,321

5,017,979

Professionals

1,693

61%

1,091

39%

40,486,862

25,885,042

Technicians

811

467.

971

54%

15,757,392

18,497,808

Protective Service

548

90%

10%

11,044,503

1,227,167

Para-Professional

2A8

397,

390

61%

3,976,716

6,219,991

Clerical

967

93%

1,131,090

15,024,003

Craft

71%

29%

947,694

387,086

Service

192

62%

120

38%

3.049.917

1.869.304

4,152

3,782

93,193,495

74,128,380

AVERAGE SALARY: 122,445 $19,600

AVERAGE FEMALE SALARY AS % OF MALE SALARY: 87%

HYPOTHETICAL WAGE GAP: 13%

* Produced by grouping classes into occupational categories and portioning available
salary dollars according to the percentage of jobs in category held by mole/f ciiiale.

Each occupational group includes a number of classes and a range of grades. In the
"Clerical" occupational group, for example, are receptionist, word processing operator,
administrative assistant, olllce clerk, accounting clerk, and many other classes. Grades
assigned to these classes range from 5 to 12. The total salary for that group combines
the salaries paid for each position in each class.

It is reasonable to assume that most of the positions and classes in each group are
properly classified, gi\en that their titles and grades resulted from evaluation of the
content of the jobs.

Table 2 demonstrates that when the total salaries for each occupational group arc
portioned out according to the percent male or female employed in the group, the a\erage
female salary is 87 percent of the average male salary. This test indicates that at least
13 percent of the wage gap is the result of legitimate dilTerences in job content. This
much of the gap, at least, cannot be corrected by a verifiable standard of comparable
worth. In fact, it is likely that the 13 percent figure is conservative, as the test al)o\e
assumes that females do not dominate only the lower-graded classes in each occupational
group, and that they are equally represented in the higher-graded classes. This is not the
case.

In the "Service" group, for example, males dominate the grade 8 maintenance worker and
groundskeeper classes while females dominate the grade 6 laundi-y worker class. Since

COMPWTII.RPT

ApprDximatc

Number

Crade

\h\nu.e

of Classes

16 -

160

11 -

605

9 -

316

6 -

7 -

4 -

8 -

129

4 -

du' (liilies |)i iloinu'd and lespoiisihililies assiiiiicd hy llie iiiaintenance woikers and
•jroimdskeepeis are more dinictih (liaii (hose ol" the laundry worker, usinj; the same
"yardstick" to measure all three, the maiiitenanee worker and grouiidskeeper classes will
pay more rc^ariikss ol' \>1iiiIh'i' tiiey are dominated by males or females.

Helow is (he number of classes in each occupational category ahuij^ with the approximate
ranize of jirades.

Occu pational Cateuorv

Admiuistrators/Onicials

Professionals

'lechnicians

Protective Services

Paraprofessional

Clerical

Skilled (rail

Ser\ ice/Maintenance

('lasses are assi<;ned to pay j^rades based on comparisons with other classes, so that equal
pay for work of comparai)Ie dinicuKy and responsibili(y does occur. Cus(()dian II (a
Service/Maintenance class) mijiht be compared to Accounting Clerk II and III (Clerical
classes) and to Baker 1 and II (Skilled Craft class) to find tiie most comparable skill
level. It should be noted that in the Statewide Classillcation and Pay Schedule, there are
25 f^rades, or skill le\els, I)ul oidy 21 of them are in use. Approximately 1,325 classes are
distributed across tliese 2! j^rades. As shown on the list above, several different
occupational "^loups may be represented in the same grade.

Male/Kemale Dominant Classes

For this study, a class is determined to be either female dominant or male dominant if
it includes at least Ine positions, and 70 percent of the incumbents are the same sex.

Data indicate that within most occupational groups, excep( for (he "Clerical" group where
(hey domina(e all classes, when females are dominant (hey dominate the lower-graded
classes, while males are more apt to dominate the higher-graded classes. The following
chart comi)ares the number of female-dominant and male-dominant classes by grade.

coMPW ni.Ri'r .9.

f'JUMBER OF female/male: DOMIflAI-JT L [>5SE5

AT E/^H GPAnC

U
li.

,r-\

\ / 'r A

/ \ /
/ V

-J 1 1 1 I J 1 I I

_l I I "-

3 11 \2 IS r

GRADE
D FEMALE Cm-J-:£-j 1- MALE CH-J'JES

Men and women in Montana state government tend toward traditional roles in employ-
ment, with women occupying more "helping" types of positions (secretary, nurse, social
worker, home attendant, and counselor) while males occupy more positions involving use
of mathematics, manipulation of objects, and/or physical strength (engineer, program-
mer/analyst, forester, truck driver, maintenance worker, etc.).

Paula England,'^ in discussing occupational sex segregation, observes that sex role
socialization influences (he kind of work dominated by either sex. "Female socialization,"
states England, "encourages (I) nurturant and helping orientations and (2) acceptance of
responsibility for house work and child care and discourages (3) authoritativeness or
aggressiveness, (4) quantitative or mechanical performance, and (5) physical strength."

Appendix A lists some of the classes in each occupational category that are dominated by
one gender. This list seents to substantiate the observations made by England. If
females accept more responsibility for housework and child care, they may be reluctant
to pursue careers that require considerable travel (Reclamation Specialist, Deputy Fire
Marshall, Lottery Marketing Representative). If females are discouraged from exhibiting
authoritativeness or aggressiveness, they may not seek careers in law enforcement
(Highway Patrol Ofl'icer, Fish and Game Warden, Correctional Onicer) and may not
compete effectively for managerial positions (Administrators/OITicials occupations).

* Paula England, "Socioeconomic Explanations of Job Segregation," Comparable Worth
and Wage Discrimination, op. cit. p. 29.

coMPwni.Rpr

10 -

From adolescence on, males lend to score hi};her on tests of quantitative ability and
mechanical perroiinance. Whether this is the result of difl'erences between the sexes or
the result of differential treatment in education, these abilities manifest themselves in
male dominance of classes that require advanced mathematical skills (Knvironmenlal
Specialist, Programmer/Analyst, Civil Kngineer)/ Finally, most positions i-e(|niring
physical strength or manipulation of objects are male dominant (Laborer, Maintenance
Worker, Truck Driver).

The challenge of comparable worth is to ensure that those skills that are inherent in
male-dominant classes aren't valued higher simply because they are characteristic of
males -- and that skills that are inherent in female-dominant classes aren't undenalued
simply because they are characteristic of females.

This requires that the "yardstick" (or job evaluation methodology) an organization uses
to measure the worth ol' its jobs be free of gender bias.

Comparable worth also requires that the "yardstick" be applied with equity to all
occupational groups.

Table 3 on the next page is a closer analysis of the wage gap which compares what
emplojees would make if they were evenly represented in each grade level in each
category (as shown in Table 2), to what they actually earn, based on a more in-depth job
analysis.

Females, according to Table 3, should earn 54 percent of the total salaries for Tech-
nicians, if all Technician jobs were comparable in the five factors, because they hold 54
percent of the Technicians jobs. In fact, however, they earn 51 percent of the total salai-j
because they hold a disproportionate share of the less difficult, lower-graded positions
within that occupational group. For example, the largest female-dominant class (100 +
positions) in the Technicians categoi7 is "Eligibility Technician II" at grade 11. The
largest male dominant class in the categoi^ (100-1- positions) is "Engineering Tech-
nician III" which is two grades higher because the work is more difficult and responsible
as measured by the five factor evaluation system.

If all Professional jobs were at the same level of difi'iculty and responsibility, females
would receive 39 percent of the total salaries paid to that occupational group. In fact,
they earn 37 percent because, while they dominate some of the lower-graded professional
classes, most higher-graded classes are either gender mixed or male-dominant.

^ ibid. pJ2.
COMPWTII.RPT . 11

_ c

» .2

c s
c w

U w
U

,JJ

I 11

')^ a

S a:
£. >->

.2 ?

■ 1

■o

.>t

::.

« i

*. s

M Q.

.5 E

c s

.2 y

t ;«

P =*

r £:•

n c

2 If

u t:

c
in u — •

E 0)
GJ (-
LL (13

r- O
PJ CO

O <r

*- vj pj

o >c

■o

5-e H

fNJ N.

■J M

o O

00 m

00 •-

K) 00

in >0 •— «-

J« «

^s »<

O- S.

r^ M

in m

s- o

oD r^ ^ T-

-» to -O CO
o o r^ in

o o o o

5> r^ S

00 Q

h- fO

CO in
ro ro

o o

5 s

o o

ro CM *o

ro
■O

c_
a

ro 'O ^ r^

ro ^ •- •-

■O O

in ^ .— «-

Sv"

u •

— CM

^ ^

g CM

(U r\j

—> in
ro r-

»>.

X -

(0 L

l- 03

i> —

> ra

ID V)

o
(sj"

iig:

i °3

— CO

ro r^

(71 V

o ro

ID t.

1- ra

c; —

> a

-w' <_/

to m

■o

>- ^

•—

ro C

V5 O

—*

g.t

tf)

>t- c

0 -

»* ifi

i/l u

>• <-

i. o

(ti >^

ra —

ul "D

CI 0

*->

u. £>

*-*

!J>

«)

■o

C3>

M-

4-* a

COMPWTII.RPT

Summary

If all occupations required (he same degree of skill and involved the same responsibilities,
and a \>age gap still (.xislcd between male and feniale salaries, discriminatory |)ay
practices would be obsimis. But the fact is, some occupations are more dinicult, and
thus, are paid more.

It has been shown that based only on the fact that males and females are unevenly
distributed among occupations, a 13 percent wage gap exists. The classification process,
which assigns individual positions to pay grades, is based on a much more in-depth
analysis of job content. II' each of these classification actions is correct, a 17 percent
wage gap exists because ol' dillerences in the dilficulty of jobs held by males and females.
The classification system itself is essentially bias-free. However, because of isolated
incidents of misclassifuation and because of past practices which at one time allowed
negotiation of grades, some inetpiities in its application may exist which could affect the
wage gap.

COMPWTH.RPT . 13

PART 2
CLOSING THE WAGE GAP

The Eflccts oF Sex Segrcgiition

A wage gap \>ill exist as long as sex segregation in occupations remains. The graphs
below illustrate the fact that females arc crowded into comparatively lower-skill
occupations while males are more heavily represented in the higher-skill, higher-paying
occupations.

c 1

u a

P t

o r
n y
a
I

Fcmole Workforce Distribution

20 30
Percent

0
c

c C

u a

P t

a e

t 9

n y
a

Male Workforce Distribution

20 30
Percent

KEY:

1. - Professional and Adsinist rators/Of f icials occupations. A college education is required for entry to

most of these occupations. Administrators/Officials may, instead, require extensive work experience.

2. - Protective Service. Craft, and Technician occupations. These require more specialized knowledge and

skills, typically acquired through some post-secondary education or apprenticeship, or extensive
on-the-job training.

5. Wi - Service/Maintenance, Clerical and Paraprofessional occupations. Education and training required for
entry to these occupations is available in the public schools at the high school level or below.

To remove the effects oi' sex segregation, 1,380 employees would have to change occupa-
tions. Females are, in fact, steadily gaining representation in some of the higher-skill,
higher-pay occupations. Taiile 4 on the following page lists total numbers of employees
in each occupational group lor FY85, FY87, FY89, and PV9I. It shows that females have
increased in percentage of population in the following categories: Administrators/OITicials,
Professionals, Skilled Craft, Protective Services, and Service/Maintenance.

The Effects of DilTcrences in Education and Training

The previous bar graphs illustrate that 39 percent of female em|)loyees are in occupations
that require no foiinal education beyond the high school level, while only 12 percent of
male employees are in such occupations.

COMPVVTH.RPT

2 ^^

§ r

3 £

O. M

3 3

u r

^^.

— X

= ^

.= ;f

3 =

■c b

•— :?

L. j£.

{/)

-J

(TJ

'yi

L-

-3

V4_

■D

Q-

111
>
° o

Q to

"3.

COMPWTH.RPT

According to a piiblicalion by the Department of Labor and Industry, tlie 1980 census
indicated that anionjj persons aged 25 and over, more of Montana's females (75.9 percent)
than males (72.8 perceiil) have com|)leted high school. More males (20.1 percent) than
females (14.9 percent) have completed four or more years of college. The report did not
include information regarding other post-secondary training completed by either sex, bill
such data would likely explain the relatively greater numbers of males in Skilled Craft
and Protective Service occupations. If there are no dilTerences in education and
experience to explain uhy females are concentrated into lower-skill, lower-pay jobs, the
question becomes whether or not this results from discrimination or choice. Thus, a
portion of the wage gap could be caused by inequities in the quality of jobs which arc
made available to women.

A discussion of discrimination in hiring, promoting, and other placement actions is
beyond the scope of tiie comparable worth report, however. The existence of sex
segregation in state government is more appropriately addressed through Kqual
Employment Opportunity studies and AITirmative Action Plans. The State Personnel
Division does operate an afTirmative action program with the goal of eliminating
deliberate and/or unintentional discrimination in recruitment, selection, training,
performance appraisal, and employee assistance. A complete discussion of this program
is found in the annual EEO/AA reports to the Governor. The most recent information
available covers the period .July 1, 1989, to June 30, 1990.

Comparable worth requires equal pay for work of equal value. The gender of the
employees who perform the work is not at issue, except where it can be shown that the
work performed by one gender is valued dilTerently than the work performed by the other.

ClasslHcation System Enhancements

In the two years following the 1989 Report to the Legislature on Comparable Worth,
maintenance of the Staicwidc (.'lassillcation and Pay Schedule required re-evaluation of
some female-dominant classes.

Among the major class rexiews concluded in 1989 - 1990 were social workers. This review
resulted in a new class at a higher grade level, recognizing an increased difficulty of
protective services casework. Approximately 170 positions in a female dominant class
were upgraded as a result of this review.

Class reviews are conducted regularly to maintain a current and adequate classification
systems. During class io\iews, cross-occupational comparisons are made to ensure that
the same criteria arc applied to all classes, regardless of the gender of the incumbents.
A point factoring method, such as that currently being developed, will enable the state to
better illustrate, evaluate and explain these comparisons.

COMPWTII.RPT - 16

PART 3
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

While it can be dcnionsliak'd (hat the State of Montana has, at least in theory, practiced
a policy of "equal pay for johs of equal value," no systematic review of all jobs has been
undertaken to determine whether this has, in fact, been accomplished. There is reason
to believe that, for tlic most part, it has been accomplished for those employees
encompassed by the statewide classification and pay schedule.

Available data conceniin;; employee demographics indicates that a 17 percent wage gap
results from more males lieiiig in higher-ranking, higher-paying jobs, while more females
are in lower-ranking, lower-paying jobs. A three percent wage gap is produced by male
employees receiving more step advances and longevity increments. Combined, these
factors explain a 20 percent wage gap, while the existing wage gap in the statewide
schedule is 21 percent. Some conjecture can be made about components of the remaining
one percent.

P'irst, the 17 percent Hgure given for the wage gap produced by job content is only the
roughest estimate since the only element of job content considered was the occupational
group. As more precise measurements of job value are made, more of the wage gap may
be explained by differences in job content.

Second, it has been suggested that classes, grades and salaries negotiated through
collective bargaining ha\c favored male-dominant jobs. In addition, male employees have
more often filed and won large group appeals before the Board of Personnel Appeals.
These actions have probably resulted in pay inequity with respect to female-dominant jobs
of comparable skill levels.

Other personnel and pay practices that may alTect the wage gap have not been inves-
tigated. Among them is (he possibility that more career ladders exist in male-dominant
()ccu|)ations than in female-dominant ones. This, like the problem of job segregation, will
not be corrected with the achievement of a comparable worth standard.

Impediments to Achieving a Standard of Comparable Worth

Lack of a single standard of measurement that can be applied consistently and objectively
impedes the ability of the Department of Administration to determine whether female
dominant jobs are paid equitably with respect to male dominant jobs of comparable
value. The adoption of a (juantified, point factoring method of job evaluation will help
refine, articulate and more precisely measure the values of the current system and remove
biases that may be present in class specifications or in the application of factors to male

COMPUTII.RPT . 17

or female doniiiiaiit jolis. Quantified point factoring systems do not, however, guarantee
the elimination of hias. Helen Remick, in one of her earlier comparable worth papers,
outlined four potential sources of bias in job evaluation. These included: (1) the
dimensions of factors selected for analysis; (2) the relative weights assigned to these
factors; (3) the application of the job evaluation system; and finally, (4) the salary setting
procedures.^ Each step in the implementation process is thus vulnerable to biases which
threaten the validity of job evaluation. These issues will continue to challenge the
Department's comparable worth efforts.

In addition to the need for a better job evaluation methodology -- one that is technically
more efficient, objective, and easily understood -- impediments to achieving a standard of
comparable worth continue to be the existence of separate pay plans and the fact that the
relationship between jol) content and pay is not the same for all employees. Employees
paid under the Blue Collar Plan and the Retail Clerks Plan generally receive higher pay
than those in comparable jobs paid under the statewide schedule.

^ Helen Remick, "The Comparable Worth Controversy," Public Personnel Management
10 (1981): 371-3S3.

COMPVVTH.RPT - 18 -

APPENDIX A

Sample Fcmalc/Malc Dominant Classes
Female-Dominant Classes:

(1) Admin istrators/Onicials

There are no female-dominant classes in this category.

(2) Professionals

Grade 17 Nurse Fxception*

Grade 16 Nurse Kxceplion*

Grade 15 Nurse Kxception*

Economic Assistance County Supervisor II

Grade 14 Nurse lAception*

Health Care Facility Surveyor

Economic Assistance County Supervisor I

Community Social Worker II

Grade 13 Microbiologist III

Accounting Specialist III
Administrative OfTicer I
Family Resource Specialist
Community Social Worker I

Grade 12 Microbiologist II

Accounting Specialist II

Program Specialist I

Social Service Coordinator I

Grade 11 Accounting Specialist I
Compliance Specialist I

Nurse Exception classes were established during F^'89 and FY90 for pay exception
purposes. The grades shown represents two-grade differences from original grades.

COMPWTII.RPT . 19

(3) Tcchiiiciiins
Grade 12

Pariile<i:il Assistant II
Administrative Assistant IV
Licensinf^/Ccrlification Specialist II
Eligil)ility Technician Supervisor

Grade 11 Licensed Practical Nurse III
Drivers Services Specialist I
Administrative Assistant III
Licensinj^/Certincation Specialist I
Program Assistant III
Eligibilily Technician II

Grade 10 Licensed Practical Nurse II
Audit Technician II
Accounting Technician II
Personnel Technician II
Administrative Assistant II
Program Assistant II
Computer Operator Technician II
Eligibilily Technician I
Eligibility Investigator

Grade 9 Statistical Technician

Accounting Technician I

Child Support Enforcement Technician I

Administrative Assistant I

Program Assistant I

Word Processing Technician

Grade 8 Communications Systems Operator 1

(4) Protective Services

There are no female dominant classes in this occupational categoi^.

COMPNVTII.RPT

(5) Piiinprorcssionals

Grade 8 Kniploynicnt Assislant

(iiadc 7 lliinian Services Aide
Iloine Attendant
Resident Care Aide I

(6) Clerical

Grade II OfTice Supervisor III

Administrative Secretary II

Grade 10 OH'ice Supervisor II

Administrative Secretary I
Clerk Supervisor III

Grade 9 Secretary III

Legal Secretary II

Grade 8 Secretary II

Word Processing Operator III
Administrative Aide II
Proi)erty Tax Clerk II
Accounting Clerk III
Administrative Clerk III
Tax Examining Clerk

Grade 7 Secretary I

Word Processing Operator II
Typist III

Administrative Aide I
Data Kntry Operator III
Accounting Clerk II
Administrative Clerk II
Switchboard Operator II
Receptionist II
Medical Records Clerk

COMPWTII.RPT . 21 -

Grade 6 File CIc.k II
Typist 11

Data Kiitry Operator 11
Administrative Clerk I
Receptionist I
Microlllm Clerk I

Grade 5 OlTice Clerk II

(7) Skilled Craft

There are no female dominant classes in this occnpational category.

(8) Service/Maintenance

Grade 7 Cook I

Grade 5 Food Service Worker I

Male Dominant Classes

(I) Administrators/Officials

Grade 18 - 22 Career Executive Assignment (most division administrator and com-
parable level positions are classified in this series)

Grade 18 Civil Engineering Manager II

FishAVildlife Parks Regional Manager
Data Processing Manager IV

Grade 17 Civil Engineering Manager II
Resource Program Manager II
Institutions Services Manager II
Regulatory Program Manager II
Administrative OITicer V
Data Pioocssing Manager III
Plannini! Manager II

COMPNVTll.RPT

22 -

Grade 16 Rcsouive Program Manaj^er I

Fisli/WildlilV Regional Maiiajjer I
Regulalory I'roj^ram Manager I
Administrative OlFicer IV
Human Services Manager I

(2) Professionals

Grade 20 Attorney Supervisor IV

Grade 19 Attorney Specialist IV

Grade 18 Attorney S|Kcialist III

Grade 16 Civil Engineering Specialist V

Informiition Systems Specialist IV - Internals
Inforniaiion Systems Specialist IV - Applications
Environmental Program Supervisor
Fish/Wildlife Program Officer
Executive Budget Analyst II
Telecoiiununications System Analyst III
Criminal hnestigator
Fish & Ciame Warden Captain

Grade 15 Civil Engineering Specialist IV
Environmenlal Engineer III
Water Rights Field Supervisor
Information Systems Specialist III - Applications
Environmental Specialist IV
Forestry Program Officer
FishAVildlife Program Specialist
Accounlant II
Revenue Agent III
Management Analyst III
Tax Ajjpraisal Specialist III
Researcli Specialist IV
Highway Patrol Lieutenant
Fish & Game Warden Sergeant

COMPWni.RPT - 23

Grade 14 Civil Engineering Specialist III
TraPllc Kngineer II
Engineering Officer I

Information Systems Specialist II - Implementations
IIydrol();;ist

Environmental Specialist III
Forestry Program Specialist
Reclam:ition Specialist II
FishAMUilife Biologist
Auditor IV
Re\eniie Agent II
Research Specialist III
Emergency Management Specialist II

Grade 13 Civil Engineering Specialist II
Water Uesonrce Specialist III
Environinenlal Specialist II
Forester II
Revenue Agent I
Employment Services Supervisor
Safety/Health Specialist II
Probation cS; Parole Officer

Grade 12 Civil Engineering Specialist I
Forester I
Fish Culturist
Substance Abuse Counselor
Correctional Recreation Specialist
Correctional Treatment Specialist I

Grade 11 Water Resource Specialist I

(3) Technicians

Grade 15 Design Supervisor

Grade 1-4 Designer III
Utility Agent

Building Codes Inspector
Appraisal Supervisor II

COMPWni.RPT . 24 -

(inule 13 Desijjru'r II

Enginci'iiiif; reciiniciiin III
Materials Laboratory Supervisor
Appraiser IV
Apprais;il Supervisor I
Fish IhiUlury Supervisor I
ComnuMiicalions Technician III

Grade 12 Designer I

Motor \'eliicle Safety Inspector II

Appraiser 111

Field Technician III

Grade 11 Design IVchuician II

Engineering Technician II
Materials Lab Technician II
Meat Inspector I

Grade 10 Design Technician I

Engineering Technician I
Materials Lab Technician I
Appraiser I
Research Assistant I
Brand Inspector Supervisor I
Field Technician I

Grade 9 Drafter 11

Grade 8 Survey Aide II

Brand Inspector 11
Fisheries Field Worker I

(4) Protective Services

Grade 14 Correctional Lieutenant
Highway Patrol OfTicer II
Fish & (Jame Warden III

Grade 13 Livestock Investigator

IIigh\va\ Patrol Ofllcer I
Fish & Game Warden II

COMPUTILRPT - 25 -

Grade 12 Correctional Sergeant

GVVV Compliance Oiriccr

Grade 10 Correctional Officer

Grade 8 Security Guard II

Grade C> Security Guard I

(5) Para professionals

Grade 10 Special! 1 Duty Aide 11

Cottage Life Attendant III

Grade 9 Specialist Duty Aide I

Grade 8 Researcii Aide

Grade 6 Grain Sampler I

(6) Clerical

Grade 8 Mail Clerk III

(7) Skilled Craft
Grade 12* Plumber

Grade 11* Field Maintenance Supervisor A
Grade 10* Machinist/Mechanic
Grade 9* Equipment Operator II

* These classes are i;aid according to the Blue Collar Pay Schedule rather than the
Statewide Classification and Pay Plan.

COMPWTII.RPT - 26

(S) Service/Mil intcna nee

(Jnulc 14 Maintcicincc Supervisor III

Grade 12 Correctiiiiial Food Service Supervisor II
Parks Maintenance Supervisor I
Maiiilenance Supervisor I

Grade 10 Maintenance Worker III

Grade 9 Foresti> Woi ker III

Maintenance Worker II

Grade 8 Groundskeeper II

Grade 7 Custodian II

Foresti*}' Worker II

Grade 5 Forestry Worker I
Laborer I

COMPWni.RPT

Montana State Library

Records Digitization Project

COVER SHEET

This page is not part of the original document
and was inserted for formatting purposes

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Comparable worth in Montana state government : a report to the Fifty-second Legislature"

See other formats